Verification does not turn something subjective into objective, that is bizarre. Galileo was either right or wrong about seeing rings, even if no one ever saw Saturn again, it would not make what Galileo saw subjective. If there is a right/wrong or true/false answer to a statement or proposition, then it can’t be subjective.

There IS no documentational evidence that the Priesthood Ban was divinely initiated.

It's doctrine by implication and such is published. OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam. Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long? The new Book of Mormon manual on 2 Nephi 5 describes the Lamanite curse in terms very similar to what some LDS claim to be speculation for the modern priesthood ban.

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

There IS no documentational evidence that the Priesthood Ban was divinely initiated.

It's doctrine by implication and such is published. OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam. Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long? The new Book of Mormon manual on 2 Nephi 5 describes the Lamanite curse in terms very similar to what some LDS claim to be speculation for the modern priesthood ban.

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

bcspace---

We already know that the Church and certain of its defenders are lying with the "we don't know" routine. You don't have to keep beating a dead horse.

_________________“[The] Parmageddon [has] pierogi, kraut, and sharp cheddar, and then it goes into the meltification machine — it’s outta bounds and so much more than a grilled cheese sandwich.”

OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam.

Correct. Other doctrinal statements also confirm it is doctrine. BTW The OD2 and other statements talk about race, regardless of your dishonest attempt otherwise.

Quote:

Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long?

Further evidence God is not running the LDS church.

Quote:

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

Making the We don't know dishonest. BTW the church has never stated the newsroom is to be considered doctrine.

Official needs to be dropped since if something is not official doctrine it is not doctrine of the LDS church.

This statement seems to cover what most members agree on, though the church has never come out with any declaration or proclamation regarding what is doctrine. It would help some members like yourself understand how it works if they did.

Quote:

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

It's doctrine by implication and such is published. OD 2 itself speaks of the long promised day. Who else in LDS theology could make such a promise other than God through his prophets? LDS doctrine (D&C Institute Manual OD 2) also has the ban from the time of Adam. Do any LDS honestly believe God would allow the prophets to be mistaken for that long? The new Book of Mormon manual on 2 Nephi 5 describes the Lamanite curse in terms very similar to what some LDS claim to be speculation for the modern priesthood ban.

LDS doctrine remains that the priesthood ban, which has been around since the time of Adam until some 30 years ago, is Divinely Appointed. There is no way to escape it until the Church modifies it's current publications and actually specifies what it and is not speculation in it's doctrine Newsroom statements.

Quote:

bcspace---

We already know that the Church and certain of its defenders are lying with the "we don't know" routine. You don't have to keep beating a dead horse.

No, the Church is being honest in saying reasons are not known without denying the doctrine that currently exists. Some apologists on the "SLDS" side are taking it to mean the Church has abandoned all doctrine on the matter and are misrepresenting the Church in that regard. They are also labeling those defenders who do point out the doctrine "racists" or "race-baiters".

Now then, heterosexuals may be partly to blame for the current flood of opinions being voiced in support of tolerance for homosexual relationships, after all, homosexuals are not doing anything qualitiatively different than many heterosexuals, including heterosexuals who consider themselves to be good members of the Church. It seems to have become acceptable to use one's mouth for that which it was never intended, and to occupy one's genitals in ways that the Lord never ordained. Oral sex and all other perversions of the procreative power shared with us by the Lord are unholy and impure practices that we covenant to avoid. But if the heterosexual community embraces that which is unholy and impure, it can hardly complain of the homosexual community acting in an similarly unholy and impure manner.

Oh, god

JeremyOrbe-Smith wrote:

. . . .what consenting adults do with their mouths in their bedrooms is not anyone's business but theirs.

Mark Beesley wrote:

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

If there is life in the universe, their appearance is an unknown and so is their culture and spiritual needs. So There will be a gospel tailored to them. For All are God's children regardless how they look.

For the Essence of God is Intelligence. Like us, Our cousins in the universe will be intelligent. One of my several opinions, that there is a possible Cathar species(a feline humanoid race from star wars) in the Universe. Remember the Person with the Lions head in heaven praising God. I do believe that his race is both symbolic and an older humanoid race.

If there is life in the universe, their appearance is an unknown and so is their culture and spiritual needs. So There will be a gospel tailored to them. For All are God's children regardless how they look.

For the Essence of God is Intelligence. Like us, Our cousins in the universe will be intelligent. One of my several opinions, that there is a possible Cathar species(a feline humanoid race from star wars) in the Universe. Remember the Person with the Lions head in heaven praising God. I do believe that his race is both symbolic and an older humanoid race.

I, personally, wouldn't attend a gay wedding, not just because I view those weddings as morally objectionable, but also because I don't look good in pastels.

I can respect that others of my faith may see it differently, and since attendance at such weddings is entirely irrelevant to the attendee fulfilling the 4-fold mission of the church, I don't see why it would be factored into church standing. Certainly, I have seen no indication that it is--any more than taking someone to get an abortion.

If there is life in the universe, their appearance is an unknown and so is their culture and spiritual needs. So There will be a gospel tailored to them. For All are God's children regardless how they look.

It is a novel about "natives, simple and unlettered Stone Age types that they are, have managed to come this far with no superstitions or traces of deism whatsoever.".who"... have thunder, trees and water without having thunder-gods, tree sprites, or water nymphs. They have no ugly little gods, taboos, or spells to hag-ride and limit their lives. They are the only primitive people I have ever encountered that are completely free of superstition and appear to be much happier and sane because of it."

You can read the plot here.There is a conflict of "trader Garth", "father Mark" and the "weskers".

_________________- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei

The internet, as others have noted, is a two-edged sword. It gives every crank a soap box and every demagogue a bully pulpit. It flatters short attention spans, and so lends itself to tabloidesque sensationalism and the dissemination of sound-bites that distort rather than inform.

Comparing sexually defiling of children with sexually defying of homosexuals = Success

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

wenglund wrote:

Geez, lost, do you want to be remembered as the person who twisted my comments beyond recognition? My comments were confined to "sexual defilement," and said nothing about lifestyles and ruthlessness. Sexual defilement is sexual defilement, just as sin is sin. What about this don't you get?

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 6:40 pmPosts: 5311Location: What does the fox say?

Hades wrote:

Mark Beesley wrote:

You be sure and tell the Lord that when you are standing before Him on Judgment Day. You're gonna tell the Creator and Heaven and Earth, it's none of your business what I did in my bedroom? You might want to spend some time with King Benjamin in the Book of Mosiah.

What kind of pervert God makes my bedroom his business?

God and his angels are the ultimate voyeurs. You think it creepy when bishops ask teens about their little factories, or SP want to know what color of panties were involved, what positions were employed, etc etc...... Well it has nothing on invisible beings watching your intimate moments in all their invisible omnipresence.

_________________The ultimate action of a warrior, is to put down his sword.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.~Bill Hamblin

God and his angels are the ultimate voyeurs. You think it creepy when bishops ask teens about their little factories, or SP want to know what color of panties were involved, what positions were employed, etc etc...... Well it has nothing on invisible beings watching your intimate moments in all their invisible omnipresence.

For added creepiness factor, open up your baby making sessions with a prayer!